Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a cutting mechanism comprising” should be changed to “the cutting mechanism comprising”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a cutting mechanism support on which the cutting rotor is mounted” should be changed to “the cutting mechanism support on which the cutting rotor is mounted”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “a gap dimension between the feed rollers can be varied” should be changed to “a gap dimension between the feed rollers is varied”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein strands entering the cutting mechanism can be sheared off by the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at the counter-knife” should be changed to “wherein the strands entering the cutting mechanism is sheared off by the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at the counter-knife”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a contact force between the feed rollers of the pair of feed rollers” should be changed to “a contact force between the feed rollers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 23 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim recites “a feeding device”, however the claim does not specify the material being fed by the feeding device.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at least one feed roller of the pair of feed rollers” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which material being fed by “at least one feed roller of the pair of feed rollers”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a cutting mechanism of a pelletizer at a second articulation point” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “pelletizer”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no mechanical cooperation between ““a cutting mechanism” and the elements of the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the separation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the separation" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, in lines 5-6 the phrase “is mounted transversely to its longitudinal axis of the feed roller” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to; it is unclear if “the feed roller” is the same as or different from “a pair of feed rollers” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 8, and it is unclear if “the feed roller” is the same as or different from “at least one of the feed rollers” that recited in line 56 of the same claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein the adjustment actuator has, on the one hand, an articulation point on the movable roller suspension and, on the other hand” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is been required by “on the one hand; and on the other hand”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the separation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23 the phrase “the cover hood is disposed outside a force flow that conducts operating” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “operating”.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “wherein at least one of:
the first and second clear distances are both smaller than a diameter of the at least one movably mounted feed roller; or the first and second clear distances are both smaller than a diameter of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor” render the claim indefinite because:
claim 28 is depended from claim 24, and
claim 24 recited “wherein at least one of: the cover hood has a hood ceiling that has a first clear distance from the feed device; or the cover hood has a hood ceiling that has a second clear distance from the cutting mechanism”
so, if claim 24 required “the cover hood has a hood ceiling that has a first clear distance from the feed device”; then claim 28 cannot have “the first and second clear distances are both”; and
if claim 24 required “the cover hood has a hood ceiling that has a second clear distance from the cutting mechanism”; then claim 28 cannot have “the first and second clear distances are both”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Matuschek (US20220097260A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “an adjustment actuator configured for linkage to: the roller suspension at a first articulation point; and a cutting mechanism support of a cutting mechanism of a pelletizer at a second articulation point; wherein the roller suspension and the adjustment actuator provide for adjustment of a gap dimension between the feed rollers of the pair of feed rollers and/or a contact force between the feed rollers of the pair of feed rollers” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-7 are depended from claim 1.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 8, the closet prior art is Matuschek (US20220097260A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “wherein an adjustment actuator linked to the movable roller suspension is provided for adjusting the gap dimension and/or a contact force between the feed rollers; and wherein the adjustment actuator has, on the one hand, an articulation point on the movable roller suspension and, on the other hand, an articulation point on a cutting mechanism support on which the rotationally drivable cutting rotor is mounted, so that the movable roller suspension and the cutting mechanism support are directly connected by the adjustment actuator” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 9-10 are depended from claim 8.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 11, the closet prior art is Matuschek (US20220097260A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “an adjustment actuator configured for linkage to: the movable roller suspension at a first articulation point; and the cutting mechanism support at a second articulation point; wherein the movable roller suspension and the adjustment actuator provide for adjustment of a gap dimension between the feed rollers of the pair of feed rollers and/or a contact force between the feed rollers of the pair of feed rollers” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 12-28 are depended from claim 11.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights